Talk:Magdalen papyrus
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Comfort and dating
I think it's fine that we mention Comfort, but I don't think we should give his book undue weight. He tends to date things earlier than the established consensus, and we can't simply present a minority view like this as if it were the majority. Maybe in a few years his research will catch on and the consensus will shift, but we cannot be premature. We have to keep NPOV in mind and represent our sources (and hopefully the scholarly consensus). I think until the next NA revision comes out and recognizes (or not) Comfort's conclusions, we need to present a balance in this article. (looking at http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/, they haven't grouped them together yet, but they do cite Comfort in the bibliography) -Andrew c [talk] 16:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There are wild discrepancies in this article concerning the so-called agreed date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbjbjbjbjb (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just noticed an unregistered user made some dubious changes in April to the lead section. I have reverted these. SmilingFace (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
All or nothing statement?
In this article there is the statement, "The fragments are written on both sides, *conclusive proof* that they came from a codex rather than a scroll." (emphasis mine)
I have long thought that it wasn't a good idea to make "all or nothing" claims unless the evidence is overwhelming. In this case, the fact that a few scraps of papyrus were written on both sides is not "conclusive proof" that they came from a codex. They might have come from an opisthograph. Therefore, I have changed the text to read, "leading scholars to think that they came from a codex rather than a scroll".
It's important to be as accurate as possible. Tredzwater (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)